Skip to main content
Log in

Comparison of different SUV-based methods for monitoring cytotoxic therapy with FDG PET

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG PET) is a promising tool for monitoring cytotoxic therapy in tumours. Due to the limited data available, a standard imaging protocol for the prediction of tumour response has not yet been approved. The aim of this study was to compare commonly applied imaging protocols and calculations of the standardised uptake value (SUV) for the early prediction of histopathological response to chemotherapy.

Methods

Serial FDG PET scans of 43 patients with gastric carcinomas were retrospectively analysed. All patients received two consecutive scans (one bed position at 40 min p.i. and four bed positions at 90 min p.i.) at baseline and during the first cycle of cisplatinum-based chemotherapy. Reconstruction of the images was performed by filtered back-projection (FBP) and using an iterative algorithm (OSEM). SUVs were calculated with and without correction for the blood glucose level using normalisation by body weight, body surface area and lean body mass. Relative percentage changes between SUVs at baseline and follow-up were calculated and analysed for their potential to predict histopathological response to chemotherapy (ROC analysis). Response was defined as less than 10% viable tumour cells in the tumour specimen obtained by surgery 3–4 weeks after the completion of chemotherapy.

Results

Eight of 43 patients were histopathological responders to chemotherapy. The percentage changes in SUVbody weight for responders and non-responders were −52.2 (±13.2) and −25.2 (±15.2), −54.7 (±18.2) and −24.5 (±16.1), −53.9 (±24.2) and −22.7 (±21.3), and −56.7 (±21.6) and −26.1 (±18.9) for serial scans at 40-min FBP, 40-min OSEM, 90-min FBP and 90-min OSEM, respectively (responders versus non-responders: p<0.01 in each case). According to ROC analysis, neither the scan protocol nor correction for blood glucose significantly influenced the accuracy (approx. 80%) or the cut-off value (approx. −40% change in tumour SUV) for the prediction of response. Normalisation of SUVs by body surface area or lean body mass instead of body weight yielded essentially identical results.

Conclusion

In gastric carcinomas the prediction of response to chemotherapy on the basis of relative tumour SUV changes is not essentially influenced by any of the methodological variations investigated (time delay after FDG administration, acquisition protocol, reconstruction algorithm, normalisation of SUV). This demonstrates the robustness of FDG PET for therapeutic monitoring and facilitates the comparability of studies obtained at different institutions and with different protocols. However, whichever method is used for therapy monitoring with FDG PET, a highly standardised protocol must be observed to take the dynamics of tumour FDG uptake into account.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2a,b
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5a,b
Fig. 6a,b
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. van der Hiel B, Pauwels EK, Stokkel MP. Positron emission tomography with 2-[18F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose in oncology. Part IIIa. Therapy response monitoring in breast cancer, lymphoma and gliomas. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2001;127:269–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Stokkel MP, Draisma A, Pauwels EK. Positron emission tomography with 2-[18F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose in oncology. Part IIIb. Therapy response monitoring in colorectal and lung tumours, head and neck cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma and sarcoma. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2001;127:278–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Young H, Baum R, Cremerius U, Herholz K, Hoekstra O, Lammertsma AA, et al. Measurement of clinical and subclinical tumour response using [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography: review and 1999 EORTC recommendations. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) PET Study Group. Eur J Cancer 1999;35:1773–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Erdogan H, Fessler JA. Ordered subsets algorithms for transmission tomography. Phys Med Biol 1999;44:2835–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Wilke H, Fink U. Multimodal therapy for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction. N Engl J Med 1996;335:509–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Weber WA, Ziegler SI, Thodtmann R, Hanauske AR, Schwaiger M. Reproducibility of metabolic measurements in malignant tumors using FDG PET. J Nucl Med 1999;40:1771–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Weber WA, Ott K, Becker K, Dittler HJ, Helmberger H, Avril NE, et al. Prediction of response to preoperative chemotherapy in adenocarcinomas of the esophagogastric junction by metabolic imaging. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:3058–65.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hamacher K, Coenen HH, Stocklin G. Efficient stereospecific synthesis of no-carrier-added 2-[18F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose using aminopolyether supported nucleophilic substitution. J Nucl Med 1986;27:235–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Wienhard K, Eriksson L, Grootoonk S, Casey M, Pietrzyk U, Heiss WD. Performance evaluation of the positron scanner ECAT EXACT. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1992;16:804–13.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ott K, Fink U, Becker K, Stahl A, Dittler HJ, Busch R, et al. Prediction of response to preoperative chemotherapy in gastric carcinoma by metabolic imaging: results of a prospective trial. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:4604–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hoekstra CJ, Hoekstra OS, Stroobants SG, Vansteenkiste J, Nuyts J, Smit EF, et al. Methods to monitor response to chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer with 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med 2002;43:1304–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Becker K, Mueller J, Fink U, Busch R, Siewert JR, Hofler H. Morphologic response evaluation of neoadjuvant chemotherapy of gastric carcinoma. Verh Dtsch Ges Pathol 2000;84:164–74.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Visvikis D, Cheze-LeRest C, Costa DC, Bomanji J, Gacinovic S, Ell PJ. Influence of OSEM and segmented attenuation correction in the calculation of standardised uptake values for [18F] FDG PET. Eur J Nucl Med 2001;28:1326–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Krak NC, Van Der Hoeven JJ, Hoekstra OS, Twisk JW, Van Der Wall E, Lammertsma AA. Measuring [18F] FDG uptake in breast cancer during chemotherapy: comparison of analytical methods. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003;30:674–81.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hamberg LM, Hunter GJ, Alpert NM, Choi NC, Babich JW, Fischman AJ. The dose uptake ratio as an index of glucose metabolism: useful parameter or oversimplification? J Nucl Med 1994;35:1308–12.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the efforts of the cyclotron and radiochemistry staff. Furthermore, we appreciate the excellent technical support provided by the technologists at our institution. We thank J. Fessler, PhD, University of Michigan, for generously providing the software for the iterative reconstruction of PET studies.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Stahl.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stahl, A., Ott, K., Schwaiger, M. et al. Comparison of different SUV-based methods for monitoring cytotoxic therapy with FDG PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 31, 1471–1478 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-004-1626-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-004-1626-6

Keywords

Navigation